9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (5) TMI 54 - HC - Income TaxProvision for future warranty expenses - Whether provision for future warranty expenses is contingent liability or is allowable under section 37 of the Act? - It is not disputed that the warranty clause is part of the sale document and imposes a liability upon the assessee to discharge its obligations under that clause for the period of warranty. It is a liability which is capable of being construed in definite terms which has arisen in the accounting year. May be its actual quantification and discharge is deferred to a future date. Once an assessee is maintaining his accounts on the mercantile system, a liability accrued, though to be discharged at a future date, would be a proper deduction while working out the profits and gains of his business, regard being had to the accepted principles of commercial practice and accountancy
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the provision for future warranty expenses is a contingent liability or allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Contingent Liability vs. Allowable Expenditure: The primary issue in this case was whether the provision for future warranty expenses constitutes a contingent liability or is an allowable expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argued that the provision should be treated as a contingent liability and thus not deductible, while the assessee contended that it was a definite and certain liability, albeit estimated, and should be deductible. The assessee had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2000-01, declaring an income of Rs. 31,62,190. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation and raised a liability along with interest. The assessee appealed, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal but rejected the contention regarding the deduction for warranty provision, citing it as a contingent liability. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, granted relief to the assessee, accepting that the provision for future warranty expenses was allowable under section 37 and not a contingent liability. The Tribunal noted that the warranty and sale were inextricably linked, making the liability definite and certain, though its quantification was based on estimates derived from past data. 2. Precedent and Legal Interpretation: The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue, referencing judgments like Sheraton Apparels v. Asst. CIT and Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT, which emphasized that contingent liabilities are not deductible. However, the Tribunal and the High Court found these cases inapplicable to the present issue. Instead, they relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT, which supported the view that a liability, even if to be discharged in the future, could be considered an accrued liability and thus deductible. The High Court also referred to the Privy Council's decision in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Mitsubishi Motors New Zealand Ltd., which allowed the deduction of provisions for warranty claims based on statistical data, reinforcing that such liabilities, though contingent on future events, are definite and should be accounted for in the year of sale. 3. Change in Accountancy System: The change in the assessee's accountancy system was another point of consideration. Both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the change as bona fide. The High Court noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the change was motivated or improper. The provision for warranty expenses, made in accordance with the new system, was therefore deemed valid and reasonable. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the provision for future warranty expenses was not a contingent liability but a definite and certain liability. The change in the accountancy system was bona fide, and the provision based on past data was reasonable. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed. The court held that no substantial question of law arose for determination, affirming the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee.
|
